In a small town of 5,832 people, the mayor claims that there is a difference in the proportion of voters ages 18-30 who would support an increase in the food tax and the proportion of voters ages 31-40 who would support an increase in the food tax. An assistant to the mayor surveys 85 randomly chosen voters ages 18-30, and finds that 62 support the increase. A random sample of 70 voters ages 31-40 is also surveyed, and 56 support the increase. Based on the 99% confidence interval, (-0.25, 0.10), is there convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportion of voters ages 18-30 and ages 31-40 who would support an increase to the food tax? There is convincing evidence because the two sample proportions are different. There is convincing evidence because the difference in the two proportions is -0.07. Since this is not 0, there is difference in the true proportion of voters ages 18-30 and ages 31-40 who would support an increase to the food tax There is not convincing evidence because the interval contains 0, indicating there might not be a difference. There is not convincing evidence because two different sample sizes were used. In order